張鵬 孫運波 山峰 張賽 滕金龍 李連弟
[摘要]目的觀察膿毒癥休克兔在鈉鉀鎂鈣葡萄糖液(LJ液)復(fù)蘇期間舌下微循環(huán)的變化及其臨床意義。方法日本大耳白兔24只,隨機(jī)分為膿毒癥休克組、生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組、LJ復(fù)蘇組及對照組,每組6只。經(jīng)耳緣靜脈注射脂多糖建立內(nèi)毒素休克模型,對照組不注射內(nèi)毒素。應(yīng)用側(cè)流暗場成像技術(shù)(SDF),觀察各組在休克0、1、3、6 h進(jìn)行相應(yīng)液體復(fù)蘇后舌下微循環(huán)的總血管密度(TVD)、灌注血管密度(PVD)、灌注絨毛比例(PPV)、絨毛微血管血流指數(shù)(MFI)等指標(biāo)差異。 結(jié)果休克1 h,生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組與LJ復(fù)蘇組舌下微循環(huán)的TVD、PVD、MFI均優(yōu)于同時間點膿毒癥休克組(F=120.80~488.93,P<0.05)。休克3 h,生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組與LJ復(fù)蘇組的PPV明顯優(yōu)于同時間點膿毒癥休克組(F=89.88,P<0.05),LJ復(fù)蘇組舌下微循環(huán)TVD與PVD較生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組明顯改善(F=181.81、488.93,P<0.05)。休克6 h,LJ復(fù)蘇組舌下微循環(huán)PPV與MFI較生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組明顯改善(F=89.88、120.80,P<0.05)。結(jié)論LJ液對膿毒癥休克兔液體復(fù)蘇后舌下微循環(huán)灌注的改善效果好于生理鹽水。
[關(guān)鍵詞]休克;膿毒癥;微循環(huán);側(cè)流成像暗場;液體復(fù)蘇;治療結(jié)果
[ABSTRACT]ObjectiveTo investigate the change in sublingual microcirculation during fluid resuscitation with sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and glucose fluid (LJ solution) in rabbits with septic shock and its clinical significance. Me`-thodsA total of 24 Japanese white rabbits were randomly divided into septic shock group, saline resuscitation group, LJ resuscitation group, and control group, with 6 rabbits in each group. A model of endotoxin shock was established by lipopolysaccharide injection via the ear vein, and the rabbits in the control group were not injected with endotoxin. Sidestream dark`-field imaging was used to observe the differences between groups in total vessel density (TVD), perfused vessel density (PVD), proportion of perfused vessels (PPV), and microvascular flow index (MFI) after fluid resuscitation at 0,1,3, and 6 h of shock. ResultsAt 1 h of septic shock, the saline resuscitation group and the LJ resuscitation group had significantly better TVD, PVD, and MFI than the septic shock group (F=120.80-488.93,P<0.05). At 3 h of septic shock, the saline resuscitation group and the LJ resuscitation group had a significantly better PPV than the septic shock group (F=89.88,P<0.05), and compared with the saline resuscitation group, the LJ resuscitation group had significant improvements in TVD and PVD of sublingual microcirculation (F=181.81 and 488.93,P<0.05). At 6 h of septic shock, compared with the saline resuscitation group, the LJ resuscitation group had significant improvements in PPV and MFI of sublingual microcirculation (F=89.88 and 120.80,P<0.05). ConclusionLJ solution has a better effect than normal saline in improving sublingual microcirculation perfusion after fluid resuscitation in rabbits with septic shock.
[KEY WORDS]shock; sepsis; microcirculation; SDF imaging; fluid therapy; treatment outcome
膿毒癥休克可以導(dǎo)致多器官功能障礙綜合征(MODS),病死率高[1]。微循環(huán)屬于心血管系統(tǒng)的最小分支,在將氧氣輸送至細(xì)胞以及維持器官功能方面作用明顯[2]。有研究顯示,即使糾正了膿毒癥休克的全身血流動力學(xué)指標(biāo),維持病人有效循環(huán)血量,但由于此時微循環(huán)具有的異質(zhì)性,仍可能會導(dǎo)致器官功能障礙[3`-4]。2016年《膿毒癥與膿毒性休克處理國際指南》推薦,在起始的3 h內(nèi)給予膿毒癥休克病人輸注至少30 mL/kg的晶體液[5]。但是究竟使用哪種晶體液進(jìn)行復(fù)蘇效果較好至今尚沒有定論。有研究認(rèn)為,沒有確實的證據(jù)證明膿毒癥休克病人生理鹽水復(fù)蘇效果優(yōu)于其他復(fù)蘇溶液[6]。而且生理鹽水中的高氯離子含量會引發(fā)高氯型酸中毒和腎損害,還會增加發(fā)生高乳酸血癥的可能性,故目前沒有治療膿毒癥休克的一線復(fù)蘇液。DE BACKER等[7]發(fā)現(xiàn)膿毒癥休克病人持續(xù)的微循環(huán)障礙與病死率增加有關(guān),微循環(huán)改變較全身大循環(huán)血流動力學(xué)改變更能夠預(yù)測病人預(yù)后。監(jiān)測微循環(huán)狀態(tài)對于膿毒癥休克病人具有重要意義。側(cè)流暗視野成像技術(shù)(SDF)是一種對組織器官微循環(huán)血流情況進(jìn)行監(jiān)測的技術(shù),具有無創(chuàng)、方便及可靠等特點,臨床上多應(yīng)用于評價舌下微循環(huán)狀態(tài)[8]。本研究應(yīng)用SDF方法研究鈉鉀鎂鈣葡萄糖液(LJ液)和生理鹽水液體復(fù)蘇對膿毒癥休克后兔的舌下微循環(huán)狀態(tài)的改善情況?,F(xiàn)將結(jié)果報告如下。
1材料和方法
1.1實驗動物及分組
普通級日本大耳白兔24只,由邳州市東方養(yǎng)殖公司提供,雄性,體質(zhì)量2.0~2.5 kg。用隨機(jī)數(shù)字法分為對照組(A組)、膿毒癥休克組(B組)、生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組(C組)和LJ復(fù)蘇組(D組),每組6只。
1.2研究方法
1.2.1術(shù)前準(zhǔn)備兔飼養(yǎng)1周進(jìn)行環(huán)境脫敏,術(shù)前24 h禁食、不禁水。經(jīng)耳緣靜脈注射200 g/L 烏拉坦(2 mg/kg)進(jìn)行麻醉,并以此通道進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇。備皮,50 g/L碘附消毒,氣管切開并置入氣管插管;分離頸總動脈,經(jīng)頸總動脈置入 24 G 聚乙烯導(dǎo)管,經(jīng)傳感器連接于BL`-420S生物信號采集系統(tǒng),用于連續(xù)有創(chuàng)動脈血壓監(jiān)測。將兔舌置于LH`-SDF`-1型SDF觀測儀探頭下方,調(diào)整壓力至較大血管血流流動連續(xù)以排除偽像。
1.2.2內(nèi)毒素休克模型建立經(jīng)耳緣靜脈注射脂多糖(LPS,美國Sigma公司)2 mg/kg建立兔內(nèi)毒素休克模型,對照組則不注射內(nèi)毒素。以平均動脈壓(MAP)較前下降30%為造模成功。
1.2.3液體復(fù)蘇造模成功后,生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組以生理鹽水30 mL/(kg·h)進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇使MAP達(dá)到86.45 kPa以上并維持6 h;LJ復(fù)蘇組應(yīng)用LJ液以30 mL/(kg·h)液量進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇使MAP達(dá)到86.45 kPa,若在限定的復(fù)蘇液體量范圍內(nèi)MAP不能達(dá)到86.45 kPa,則持續(xù)泵入去甲腎上腺素輔助維持;膿毒癥休克組持續(xù)泵入去甲腎上腺素維持MAP在86.45 kPa。
1.2.4SDF測定舌下微循環(huán)灌注指標(biāo)造模成功后,應(yīng)用LH`-SDF`-1型SDF觀測儀(徐州利華電子科技發(fā)展有限公司)持續(xù)觀察兔舌下微循環(huán)變化,并于休克0、1、3、6 h時采集SDF視頻片段,采用中文微循環(huán)高級分析對比系統(tǒng)(C`-AVA`-C),分析計算總血管密度(TVD)、灌注血管密度(PVD)、絨毛灌注比例(PPV)、絨毛微血管血流指數(shù)(MFI)。
1.2.5電解質(zhì)檢測休克6 h時,使用10 mL注射器采集各組兔心內(nèi)血2 mL,注入枸櫞酸抗凝的采血管中,使用邁瑞B(yǎng)S`-800全自動生化分析儀檢測血中Na+、K+、Cl-、Ca2+、Mg2+水平。
1.3統(tǒng)計學(xué)處理
應(yīng)用SPSS 22.0軟件進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計學(xué)處理,正態(tài)分布的計量資料以±s形式表示,重復(fù)測量資料比較采用重復(fù)測量方差分析,非重復(fù)測量資料比較采用單因素方差分析。P<0.05為差異有顯著性。
2結(jié)果
2.1各組舌下微循環(huán)灌注比較
各組TVD、PVD、PPV、MFI比較(F=89.88~488.93,P<0.05)、不同時間點比較(F=16.02~185.26,P<0.05)以及時間與組別交互作用(F=23.20~90.86,P<0.05)差異均有顯著性。休克1 h,生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組與LJ復(fù)蘇組TVD、PVD、MFI指標(biāo)均優(yōu)于同時間點膿毒癥組(P<0.05);休克3 h,LJ復(fù)蘇組TVD與PVD較生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組有明顯改善(P<0.05);休克6 h,LJ復(fù)蘇組PPV與MFI較生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組有明顯改善(P<0.05)。除MFI外,兩組動物的其他微循環(huán)指標(biāo)(TVD、PVD、PPV)在所有時間點均較同時間點對照組差(P<0.05)。見表1~4。
2.2各組電解質(zhì)水平比較
休克6 h時,與對照組相比,膿毒癥休克組表現(xiàn)為高鈉血癥、高鉀血癥、高鈣血癥及低鎂血癥,生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組表現(xiàn)為高鈉血癥、低鉀血癥、高氯血癥、低鈣血癥及低鎂血癥,休克模型各組Na+、K+、Cl-、Ca2+、Mg2+與對照組比較,差異有顯著性(F=9.61~141.01,P<0.05)。LJ復(fù)蘇組與生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組比較,Na+、K+、Cl-、Ca2+及Mg2+均有明顯改善,差異有顯著意義(F=9.61~141.01,P<0.05)。見表5。
3討論
本文結(jié)果顯示,LJ液較生理鹽水能更有效改善膿毒癥休克兔微循環(huán)狀態(tài)。其原因可能是:LJ液作為一種平衡鹽溶液,其組成成分與生理鹽水有明顯差異,生理鹽水具有更高的Na+濃度(154 mmol/L vs 140 mmol/L),更高的Cl-濃度(154 mmol/L vs 115 mmol/L),以及更高的滲透壓(308 mOsm/L vs 304 mOsm/L)。這些差異會對機(jī)體的酸堿平衡產(chǎn)生有害影響。有研究顯示,使用生理鹽水進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇時,細(xì)胞外液體積的增加量略大于輸入液體的體積[9]。這是因為生理鹽水相對于細(xì)胞外液輕微高滲,使細(xì)胞內(nèi)液向細(xì)胞外液轉(zhuǎn)移所致。輸注生理鹽水還會促進(jìn)組織間隙水腫的發(fā)生,而含鈉量較低的晶體液(如林格液)則相對不易發(fā)生[10]。等體積生理鹽水Na+含量更高(154 mmol/L),這增加了組織間隙的滲透壓,并通過抑制血管緊張素`-醛固酮軸來促進(jìn)鈉潴留[11],其導(dǎo)致的組織間隙水腫可能對臨床結(jié)果產(chǎn)生負(fù)面影響[12]。
生理鹽水中過量的氯化物進(jìn)入機(jī)體會導(dǎo)致高氯型酸中毒,這會加重微循環(huán)低灌注。一項臨床研究顯示,生理鹽水會顯著降低病人動脈血pH值;而將液體換為其他低Cl-的平衡鹽溶液pH值則不受影響[13]。有研究認(rèn)為,輸注9 g/L的NaCl溶液將降低血漿的強(qiáng)離子差(SID),從而降低血漿pH值[14]。而LJ液的SID與血漿近似,因此LJ液對血漿pH值的影響較小。體外細(xì)胞模型研究證實,高氯型代謝性酸中毒還會導(dǎo)致較高水平的IL`-6與IL`-10,促進(jìn)炎癥反應(yīng)的發(fā)展[15]。高氯血癥還與重癥監(jiān)護(hù)病人的凝血障礙、急性腎損傷(AKI)風(fēng)險增加和死亡率升高有關(guān)[16]。
LJ液含有較低濃度的Cl-,代之以醋酸根為緩沖系統(tǒng),而不是乳酸根。因以乳酸根為緩沖系統(tǒng)的復(fù)蘇液可能導(dǎo)致高乳酸血癥的發(fā)生,而高乳酸血癥與血管活性藥物依賴性的感染性休克病人的死亡率的增加明顯相關(guān)[17`-18]。高乳酸血癥還能使病人凝血功能活化和抑制纖維蛋白溶解,進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致彌散性血管內(nèi)凝血,加重微循環(huán)的功能障礙[19]。采用醋酸根作為緩沖系統(tǒng)的優(yōu)勢為其在肌肉中代謝,而非肝臟[20],伴肝功能障礙的膿毒癥休克病人應(yīng)用緩沖系統(tǒng)為醋酸根的復(fù)蘇液體更為合理。
已有相關(guān)研究證明,使用生理鹽水進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇不僅對腎臟、酸堿平衡有負(fù)面影響,還會導(dǎo)致電解質(zhì)失衡,這些都可導(dǎo)致組織微循環(huán)灌注不足、炎癥反應(yīng)失調(diào)以及凝血異常(因稀釋性凝血病和(或)嚴(yán)重高氯型代謝性酸中毒所致)[21`-25]。臨床上對膿毒癥休克病人實施液體復(fù)蘇時,除注意Na+、K+等電解質(zhì)水平外,Ca2+、Mg2+等電解質(zhì)的水平亦同樣重要。 Ca2+能降低毛細(xì)血管的通透性,從而減少液體滲出至間質(zhì);Ca2+還是重要的凝血因子,參與凝血過程。Mg2+參與人體內(nèi)眾多酶促反應(yīng),其與Ca2+共同維持組織細(xì)胞的自律性。尤其要指出的是,低鎂血癥在ICU是常見的,但卻未受到重視,因在臨床中較少關(guān)注Mg2+,其在臨床中被認(rèn)為是“遺忘的陽離子”[26],但它們卻能影響微循環(huán)灌注水平。本文研究表明,LJ液在及時補(bǔ)充這些離子方面有優(yōu)勢。
本文研究結(jié)果顯示,對膿毒癥休克兔進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇治療后,至多1 h就會出現(xiàn)微循環(huán)狀態(tài)的改善;與生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組相比較,使用LJ液進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇的優(yōu)勢在4 h后開始顯現(xiàn);6 h后,LJ液對于改善膿毒癥休克兔微循環(huán)灌注效果明顯強(qiáng)于生理鹽水復(fù)蘇組;但是,單純使用液體復(fù)蘇療法,始終不能使兔微循環(huán)功能恢復(fù)至正常狀態(tài),原因可能為膿毒癥微循環(huán)紊亂的發(fā)病機(jī)制十分復(fù)雜。膿毒癥的微循環(huán)改變是由多種因素參與的,包括黏附分子表達(dá)、白細(xì)胞黏附增加、血管內(nèi)皮糖萼降解、連接蛋白解偶聯(lián)、血管滲漏增加、全身炎癥反應(yīng)、凝血功能異常、微血栓形成、局部灌注壓改變和與氧運輸功能分流相關(guān)的內(nèi)皮細(xì)胞功能障礙,這些都是膿毒癥導(dǎo)致微循環(huán)功能障礙的機(jī)制[27],所以單純使用液體復(fù)蘇療法的效果有限,應(yīng)該復(fù)合早期應(yīng)用抗生素、臟器支持、營養(yǎng)支持、鎮(zhèn)痛鎮(zhèn)靜等治療,這樣膿毒癥休克微循環(huán)的改善會更加明顯。
該實驗還有很多不足。由于樣本量較少,可能不能更明顯地反映兩種復(fù)蘇液體的效果差異;且該研究雖然說明LJ液較生理鹽水更能改善兔的微循環(huán)功能,但不能證明是否能有效改善兔預(yù)后。還有,本文研究為動物實驗,下一步還需要進(jìn)行臨床方面相關(guān)的進(jìn)一步研究。
綜上所述,使用LJ液對膿毒癥休克兔進(jìn)行液體復(fù)蘇,與生理鹽水復(fù)蘇比較能更有效促進(jìn)組織灌注,改善器官微循環(huán),恢復(fù)末梢血流供應(yīng)。但是單一使用液體復(fù)蘇療法并不能改善膿毒癥休克微循環(huán)的病情進(jìn)展。
[參考文獻(xiàn)]
[1]SINGER M, DEUTSCHMAN C S, SEYMOUR C W, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis`-3)[J].?JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association, 2016,315(8):801`-810.
[2]INCE C. The microcirculation is the motor of sepsis[J].?Critical Care (London, England), 2005,9(Suppl 4): S13`-S19.
[3]INCE C, MIK E G. Microcirculatory and mitochondrial hypo`-xia in sepsis, shock, and resuscitation[J].?Journal of Applied Physiology, 2016,120(2):226`-235.
[4]KANOORE EDUL V S, ENRICO C, LAVIOLLE B A, et al. Quantitative assessment of the microcirculation in healthy vo`-lunteers and in patients with septic shock[J].?Critical Care Medicine, 2012,40(5):1443`-1448.
[5]RHODES A, EVANS L E, ALHAZZANI W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock:2016[J].?Critical Care Medicine, 2017,45(3):486`-552.
[6]TIDSWELL R, SINGER M. Sepsis`-thoughtful management for the non`-expert[J].?Clinical Medicine, 2018,18(1):62`-68.
[7]DE BACKER D, DONADELLO K, SAKR Y A, et al. Microcirculatory alterations in patients with severe sepsis: impact of time of assessment and relationship with outcome[J].?Critical Care Medicine, 2013,41(3):791`-799.
[8]GRONER W, WINKELMAN J W, HARRIS A G, et al. Orthogonal polarization spectral imaging: a new method for study of the microcirculation[J].?Nature Medicine, 1999,5(10):1209`-1212.
[9]IMM A, CARLSON R W. Fluid resuscitation in circulatory shock[J].?Critical Care Clinics, 1993,9(2):313`-333.
[10]CHOWDHURY H A, COX E F, FRANCIS S T. A rando`-mized, controlled, double`-blind crossover study on the effects of 2 L infusions of 0.9% saline and plasma`-lyte (R) 148 on renal blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers[J].?Annals of Surgery, 2012,256(1):18`-24.
[11]LOBO D N,?STANGA Z,?ALOYSIUS M M, et al. Effect of volume loading with 1 liter intravenous infusions of 0.9% saline,4% succinylated gelatine (Gelofusine) and 6% hydroxyethyl starch (Voluven) on blood volume and endocrine responses: a randomized, three`-way crossover study in healthy vo`-lunteers[J].?Critical Care Medicine, 2010,38(2):464`-470.
[12]SHAW?A D, BAGSHAW S M, GOLDSTEIN S L. Major complications,mortality,and resource utilization after open abdominal surgery: 0.9% saline compared to plasma`-lyte[J].?Annals of Surgery, 2012,255(5):821`-829.
[13]SCHEINGRABER S, REHM M, SEHMISCH C, et al. Rapid saline infusion produces hyperchloremic acidosis in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery[J].?Anesthesiology, 1999,90(5):1265`-1270.
[14]COMFERE T. Stewart’s textbook of acid`-base[M]. Anesthesiology: ASA Publications, 2009:1170`-1171.
[15]KELLUM J A, SONG M, LI J. Lactic and hydrochloric acids induce different patterns of inflammatory response in LPS`-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells[J].?American Journal of Physiology`-Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 2004,286(4): R686`-R692.
[16]NEYRA J A, CANEPA`-ESCARO F, LI X L, et al. Association of hyperchloremia with hospital mortality in critically ill septic patients[J].?Critical Care Medicine, 2015,43(9):1938`-1944.
[17]HERNANDEZ G L, BRUHN A, CASTRO R. Persistent sepsis`-induced hypotension without hyperlactatemia: a distinct clinical and physiological profile within the spectrum of septic shock[J].?Critical Care Research and Practice, 2012(2012):1`-7. doi:10.1155/2012/536852.
[18]WACHARASINT P, NAKADA T A, BOYD J H, et al. Normal`-range blood lactate concentration in septic shock is prognostic and predictive[J].?Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2012,38(1):4`-10.
[19]THOMAS`-RUEDDEL D O,POIDINGER B, WEISS M A, et al. Hyperlactatemia is an independent predictor of mortality and denotes distinct subtypes of severe sepsis and septic shock[J].?Journal of Critical Care, 2015,30(2):439.
[20]GRIFFITH C A. The family of Ringer’s solutions[J].?Nita, 1986,9(6):480`-483.
[21]MARTINI W Z, CORTEZ D S, DUBICK M A. Comparisons of normal saline and lactated Ringer’s resuscitation on hemodynamics, metabolic responses, and coagulation in pigs after severe hemorrhagic shock[J].?Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 2013,21(1):86`-97.
[22]ZHOU F H, PENG Z Y, BISHOP J V, et al. Effects of fluid resuscitation with 0.9% saline versus a balanced electrolyte solution on acute kidney injury in a rat model of sepsis[J].?Critical Care Medicine, 2014,42(4):e270`-e278.
[23]GRUARTMONER G, MESQUIDA J, INCE C. Fluid therapy and the hypovolemic microcirculation[J].?Current Opinion in Critical Care, 2015,21(4):276`-284.
[24]SMITH C A, GOSSELIN R C, UTTER G H, et al. Does saline resuscitation affect mechanisms of coagulopathy in critically ill trauma patients? An exploratory analysis[J].?Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, 2015,26(3):250`-254.
[25]WU B U, HWANG J Q, GARDNER T H, et al. Lactated Ringer’s solution reduces systemic inflammation compared with saline in patients with acute pancreatitis[J].?Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2011,9(8):710`-717.e1.
[26]WHANG R. Routine serum magnesium determination-a continuing unrecognized need[J].?Magnesium, 1987,6(1):1`-4.
[27]DE BACKER D, ORBEGOZO CORTES D, DONADELLO K, et al. Pathophysiology of microcirculatory dysfunction and the pathogenesis of septic shock[J].?Virulence, 2014,5(1):73`-79.